Maybe if you keep repeating that bullshit, someone someday will believe it.

We invaded Iraq because Saddam:

#1 Violated the 1991 cease-fire.

#2 Saddam had chemical weapons as well as biological and nuclear research programs.

#3 Saddam helped members of Al-Qaeda.

Do I need to clue-nuke you with proof of those three statements again? Do you not remember the last time I brought all this up with you?

Quote:

Now what could we have spent all them billions on? US health care? Housing for the poor. Levies for Louisianna (or Kali.) Food for the starving? Developement of renewable energy?

We could have spent the money we used in World War Two on the same things. I mean who cares if Adolf Hitler is still prancing around Europe, he's only killing Jews, after all .

Quote:

Nope...tax cuts for the rich,

If only the rich got tax cuts, then a majority of Americans are rich... that doesn't compute.

Quote:

profits for Haliburton.

There were a bunch of kooks back in the 1950s who claimed the Korean War was fought for the 'Military Industrial Complex profits'.

You will go down in the same part of history as them.

I will use some creative editing on your next statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

The problem is if you are Jewish (unfounded and illogical beliefs) you should not be telling anybody what to do. Nor be in charge of any major lot of people. Don't make me go thought the intolerable list of violence and cruel acts that the Enternal Jew has unleased on Mankind. I do actually have other stuff to do than to quote all of history. Zeig Heil!

No, I do not care who your target is, be it Jew or Christian or Hindu or Buddhist, Never Again!

Well, Osama would be nice. He was the grand mastermind behind 9/11, after all, which only killed 3000 Americans.

Most of this mess can probably be traced back to the US and British planned, CIA executed overthrow of popularly elected Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh, over Iranian oil policy. This isn't to blame the US and UK for all of Iran's ills, but it gives the Iranian people some justification in not having a happy, sunshiney view of the West. That was a pretty big screw-over, when you think about it.

Anyhow, it's foolish to suggest that all Iranians spend their days hating the US. Most are just working to get by day to day, same as the rest of the world, and a great majority likely harbor no love for their theocratic government.

You have to make up your mind...are the Iranian people simmering with distaste for the west, or are they largely indifferent towards it while they just try go about their lives?

There's a third option...they love western things, but in their inability to earn these things, they seethe with the historical animus Muslims have in their hearts for all things non-Muslim. Writ large, they want the benefits of a modern society (respect, prestige, and oh yeah...atom bombs), only they don't want to work to accomplish any of it. Having an atom bomb is how they think they will force the west to admit to the historical greatness of the ummah.

If you're daft enough to think that Iranians (or any other Muslims) hate us because of something that happened in the 1950s, then you have an awfully short-sighted view of history. Their Muslim faith aside, the Arabs have allied themselves with the most vile regimes on earth- first the Nazis, then the Soviets. And that's just in the last century.

As for Tyler, you have to be kidding...religion responsible for all the wars ever??? Perhaps you can find a relevant example from the 20th century. I'd love to see how you can find religious elements in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, GWI, Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo, GWII. You're trying desperately to make a point, only there isn't one to be made.

Aside from that, if religion is responsible for so much strife, how do you reconcile that with the vast majority of Christianity which does untold good in the forms of charitable work? You might do well to put down the <s>Communist</s> er, Democrat screeching points for a second, and try constructing a real argument here...

Katrina? Aside from Louisiana being run (into the ground) by Democrats for time immemorial, spending on the Levees rose to unprecedented levels under the Bush administration. Local Democrats failed their constituents again.

Starving people? In America? You must be on drugs...we have an obesity epidemic here, and the poorest are invariably the fattest.

Tax cuts for the rich? I'm not even going near that- it's just too stoopid.

Halliburton? Done business with the Federal government for almost a century. How exactly do they make foreign policy?

It's not hard to argue with someone who has a religious perspective- as long as you are willing to set aside your obvious contempt for religion, which you seem unwilling to do.

What makes an argument difficult is when one party wears their ridiculously partisan views on their sleeve and uses words like "repugs"...You're a fool, and not worth the effort. Let the grownups make the decisions, and just pipe down.

Iranians aren't Arabs. They share the same religion, but speak a different language and have a somewhat different culture. Nitpick, I guess ("ALL THEM SAND NIGGERS ARE THE SAME !"), but kind of important.

I'll go out on a limb and say that most Iranians don't have a conscious hatred of the West at the front of their minds while they go about their daily business. It might come out (just like many here get all whipped up about the Middle East) at certain moments, but it's not like they spend every waking and spare moment thinking about the West.

The overthrow of Mossadegh is important - it lead to the dictatorship of the Shah and the leadup to the Islamic Revolution. By running him out of office, the US and UK effectively derailed the self-determination of the Iranian people (who, if you are aware of pre-revolution Iran, were on a path towards greater freedom and reduced religious influence) and caused them suffering.

If Eisenhower had been thrown out of office by a foreign power, and that lead to Jerry Falwell becoming the overbearing religious dictator of the US in 1980, I like to think that we'd all be mad at whoever did it - especially since we'd still be under a theocracy.

If the Iranian people don't have the right to be ticked off about something that happened in the '50s, then you have no right to be ticked off about them working with the Nazis and Soviets. IT'S JUST HISTORY AND ALL THAT, RIGHT?

Why the Iranians might dislike us is different from why the Arabs dislike us (and it's not just because of Islamic clerics telling them to do so).

And for the record, I'm no Islamic apologist. I know many of them dislike us, but I think their hatred is overblown. Buying into the hype from the media and government et al, is not much different from people in the Middle East buying into what their clerics and media tell them to think.

Seriously, I don't think that Iran will be a target for the near future. In Tom Clancy - alike political thrillers, maybe, but not in the reality. Nor will be China, DPRK, or whatever. If you want my two (Euro)cents, America will spend AT LEAST the next 5 years in looking for a good way out from the Iraqi/Afghan crisis, rather than looking for new "targets" that will only make the matter become worse. Even because, let's face it: if America starts another war, then it will have to handle the entire situation by itself. The European countries and other allies will not be sending more troops, some of them are even pulling out (the Italian troops in Iraq will be completely whitdrawn by the end of 2006, but the goal is to back out 50% of them before September and the rest between October and Christmas 2006); the UK has stated that the British troops will remain in Iraq for "five more years at least", but if America starts a new war, they will simply have not enough troops to keep the front in both Iraq AND the new war theatre. Other countries simply aren't sending (Italy itself has now a new government that will send troops NOWHERE if not under the UN "Blue Helmets" insignas). If I was the PREZ of US, I'd think twice before selecting a "new target".

__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack

Someone will probably point out that we apparently have 1.3 million military members in reserve or something. Of course, how many of those aren't paper pushers, mechanics, cooks, or other non-combat personnel?

Also, calling up so many people (if that's possible) would likely be a politically unpopular move.

Have I said anything that would lead you to imply that I harbor any such sentiments as someone who would use a term like "Sand Nigger"? That's a clear case of projection, my friend- not to mention a piss-poor attempt at characterizing me as someone who uses hate-language so you can marginalize my opinions. My 8-year old nephew could see that tactic a mile away...or is it "Kilometers" for you?

I am well aware of the difference between Persians and Arabs, Kthulhu...the overriding commonality is Islam.

The problem with infantilizing the Iranians as you do by implying that the rise of Ruhollah Khomeini was merely a reaction to western meddling is that to do so requires the belief that Khomeini spontaneously appeared in 1979. Actually, he was exiled by the "democratically elected" Motassadegh. The deeply religious public began polarizing towards Islamicism well before the CIA coup.

Hats off to you for the stunning piece of relativism...they don't really hate us- it's just how they're being hyped by our government and media. Lovely work, Kthulhu. Your profs should be proud you have internalized Moral Equivalency so thoroughly. Next time, try reality- read the Islamic Big Three, and compare the Hadiths to what the Islamists say right now. There's your hype.

PT- I agree with you. The Grand EUrinal has shown that it will not rise to the defense of freedom and democracy. Cowards almost to the man, it's far more important to triangulate in hopes that the "Deux Rives" fantasy will materialize, and that the Muslims will consider Europe their friends and not enemies. The incredible fallacy of that line of thought is evident every time one of them blows up one of your buses or trains- support for Israel isn't what they hate you for (as we all know Europeans would throw the filthy Jews to the wolves if they thought it would make friends), it's being non-Muslim. Comrade Prodi has tipped his hat (or rather his red beret) to those of us who knew to expect no better- unless the criminal UN is involved, no Italian troops.

What you forget- or ignore, I don't know- is that a fraction of the US military is engaged in what you call "crises". Less than 200,000 of our 1,000,000+ member military establishment is involved.

Just for the record, I would like to leave the Mideast for the most part...save for a couple of rapid reaction elements.

Let them have a civil war. Let Sunnis turn on Shia, Arabs on Persians, and whatever other divisions can be widened and exploited. I couldn't be more pleased than if the whole shitbox went up in flames...except for Israel.

The more of them killing each other, the fewer of them Jihading against the rest of us. For the most part, I don't care if the whole place begins to resemble the fever-swamp of the Demcratic Underground forum...

Seriously, I don't think that Iran will be a target for the near future. In Tom Clancy - alike political thrillers, maybe, but not in the reality. Nor will be China, DPRK, or whatever. If you want my two (Euro)cents, America will spend AT LEAST the next 5 years in looking for a good way out from the Iraqi/Afghan crisis, rather than looking for new "targets" that will only make the matter become worse. Even because, let's face it: if America starts another war, then it will have to handle the entire situation by itself. The European countries and other allies will not be sending more troops, some of them are even pulling out (the Italian troops in Iraq will be completely whitdrawn by the end of 2006, but the goal is to back out 50% of them before September and the rest between October and Christmas 2006); the UK has stated that the British troops will remain in Iraq for "five more years at least", but if America starts a new war, they will simply have not enough troops to keep the front in both Iraq AND the new war theatre. Other countries simply aren't sending (Italy itself has now a new government that will send troops NOWHERE if not under the UN "Blue Helmets" insignas). If I was the PREZ of US, I'd think twice before selecting a "new target".

The United States can handle Iraq and Afghanistan without a problem.

Having to fight a ground war with Iran would stress our military, but not nearly as much as it was stressed by World War Two or Korea.

It's still something I think is best avoided for the time being, the forces needed for such a war with Iran are currently needed to deter China and North Korea. However South Korea and Japan will keep, so we could probably draw down in those places if we needed to... Needless to say we should have long ago pulled out of Germany, rebasing those troops in Iraq makes a lot of sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kthulhu

Someone will probably point out that we apparently have 1.3 million military members in reserve or something. Of course, how many of those aren't paper pushers, mechanics, cooks, or other non-combat personnel?

Incorrect, we have 1.8 million active duty military personell.

There are an additional 860,000 reserve.

And you'll find that the percentage of non-combat personnel deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is almost equal to the overall percentage of military non-combat personnel.

Quote:

Also, calling up so many people (if that's possible)

The entire United States Military Reserve can be activated in six days, and deployed in twelve.

Quote:

would likely be a politically unpopular move.

Hence why I think an airstrike backed by airborne mining is a better option.

But if push comes to shove, taking Iran out from the ground is certainly possible.

Stop dropping facts on these n00bs. You'll only make them feel even weaker and more impotent.

We know that's the main reason for the contempt Europeans have for us...they have to play the peace card, because that's all they've got. You can't play the war card if as a continent you're incapable of projecting force within your own borders (think Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo), let alone without (think Darfur, Somalia, Rwanda etc.). Sure, they'll slaughter each other...then they'll decry us for not stopping them sooner. They'll let TotalElfFina (partly owned by the Fwench government) make giant deals with the Sudanese government, but then obstruct us when we try to goad the feebs at Turtle Bay into action over the forced Arabization being wrought upon the Sudanese by their own government.

Why do the Europeans love genocide so much?

*waits for someone bring the US's destruction of Natives in the 1800s up as comparison to modern genocides*